"I'll bet this mic would hold a blunt."

Hard to believe the odds are so favorable for him.

Bullsh*t Overdrive

Well, the gun debate is finally over. Bruce Willis himself has come out in favor of unabridged access to nuclear weapons.

"I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone. If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?"

So I think we can all go back to wondering why Fox thinks that Germany is sunnier than America. That's like saying that if you can't hate homosexuals then you can't hate murder or bestiality either, as Supreme Court Justice Scalia claims.

But seriously, if John McClane had not had firearms aplenty at his disposal, the line "Yippi ki yay, (expletive deleted)" would not have had the same effect, thereby rendering Die Hard just another completely forgettable action movie.

Does Stallone's top billing make his opinion more valid than Bruce's?

Such a ban would have halted this franchise dead in its tracks, where Charlton Heston could then have pried the dull butter knife out of its corpse-y, no guns allowed hands. Plus, think of all the disasters we've averted thanks to McClane and his heroic antics. And it's all delivered with (sometimes) snappy one-liners - justice AND entertainment!

Imagine my surprise when during the course of research (googling The Expendables) I discovered that Sly Stallone actually supports reinstating the assault weapons ban. There is no context for the previous remark, I just found it interesting, in a dichotomous sort of way.

Here's the thing: I enjoy target shooting. I am not a hunter, but I respect the hunter. I would hunt if I needed to. I do not believe the government has the right to take my legal firearms from me. However, I am not in favor of assault weapons. They are weapons made for war and for SWAT teams. If the idea is that we've got to be able to protect ourselves from out own government, then why can't I buy a damn tank? Or an assault helicopter? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that on the cautious side of the weapon built to cut down waves of soldiers is the right place to draw it. You can disagree with me, but I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of what one might need a machine gun for. If it turns out that someone actually does have a good reason, they should be able to apply for a special license. Perhaps we license them to firing ranges so that people can still go and enjoy shooting them. The firing range makes out, the taxpayer makes out, and the guns are still there in case of that zombie apocalypse. 

I believe that the mentally ill and convicted felons should not be allowed to own guns. I am in favor of background checks. I believe our laws should reflect these things. Just because people will break the laws does not mean we should abolish them. That's idiotic. Does the same apply to murder, or anything else we  currently have laws against, just because people will do them regardless? Or is it that if something is illegal then it makes it less likely to happen? Of course it is. Therefore, making murder legal would necessarily increase the rate of homicide, just as removing seat-belt requirements would increase traffic injuries and fatalities.

Just quit acting like regulating firearms is the same thing as taking them away. It isn't. Period. FYI - the same day that the shooting took place at Sandy Hook some nut job in China injured 22 people at an elementary school there. He used a knife, and there were no fatalities.

Today's Divine Wisdom: Don't be stupid.

Heiroglyphics LOL :)

So, usually I do my most interesting thinking when my mind is not working quite right. I've no doubt that this post will elucidate that concept.

We now use acronyms for a lot of our communication. The most recent variety came into popular usage due to that glorious invention that keeps me from having to verbally communicate with people if I don't want to: the text message. Let me start by saying that I am an English snob to a certain degree, and so one might think that I would abhor these recent bastardizations of my beloved language. Not so. In fact, I welcome them with open arms and open mind - one figuratively and one literally. Now, I'm not saying that these shortcuts are good for classic styles of literature. It's much too early to tell what the long-term effects of all this lol-ing will be for the traditional written word. Rather I am excited about it because I believe it represents a huge leap forward for the human race in terms of evolution. Or at least it is a harbinger of that impending leap.

Think about it: we can now compress entire thoughts into a simple 3-5 letter acronym, and almost everyone can actually decipher what the hell we're saying. Better yet, we can do much the same thing with emoticons - the modern heiroglyph. That is just the type of thing that has never been possible on this planet, at least not to our knowledge. The omnipresence of the internet and social media, and to a lesser extent, reality television, have made this widespread alteration in our means of communicating possible. We make the changes and society either adopts them or rejects them on an almost daily basis, until we have at our disposal an entirely new lexicon, and one that is more efficient than the one that took us thousands of years to arrive at. Mind you, there are great limitations to this "language." It imparts nearly no subtlety or emotion, and it is as yet too broad to be used for anything more than phrases or simple sayings. "You only live once." "In my opinion." "By the way." "Rolling on the floor laughing." Really? I doubt it. This is why I am not worried about the future of the language itself. And yet...

So many minds all converging on the same point is grounds for giant breakthroughs in many areas. The think tank now consists of billions of minds instead of a handful. Yes, there are plenty of morons contaminating the pool, but they've always been there, and they're easy to identify and quarantine, like the Baby Ruth bar in Caddyshack. Twitter managed to help start a regional revolution in the Middle East a couple of years back. That's a big deal. Some video gamers helped decode an HIV protein that had stymied researchers for 15 years... in 3 weeks. I could cite more examples, but I'm not here to offer a treatise on the effectiveness of modern technology in solving age-old problems. Maybe I'll do that in an upcoming post.

The caveat is that right now society is in danger of becoming a parody of itself, as its main source of knowledge and learning is the garbage that society itself cranks out. I see no value in learning that your famous   fill in the blank   is on the menu this evening, or that you broke this morning's fast yet again with your hubby, who it is your pleasure to announce that you love dearly. But once we get all that stuff sorted out and we figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff... look out! Because we are capable of great things. Really great things. Things we have heretofore not even bothered thinking about due to their seeming impossibility.

Thanks for indulging me. (insert favorite sign-off acronym here) and/or (cliché post-ending zinger to bring the whole thing together in one tidy little package)

Empathy, Anger, Sorrow, Compassion and Love.

December 14, 2012:  Expounded upon in slipshod fashion.

Source

I, like millions of other parents out there this weekend, am at a loss. In a pleasant little town in Connecticut there are twenty homes that three days three days ago were just like mine - filled with loving families and Christmas trees and carefully wrapped gifts under those trees. Homes bustling with the normal chatter of life, of the coming holidays, and of young children doing the things that young children do. Wondering where the Elf on the Shelf might be hiding today, what might be in the ginormous box that appeared under the tree last night with their beautiful little name written on the tag. The enormity of the loss that those families are enduring right now cannot be imagined by anyone who has not personally experienced it. Of that I have no doubt. But if the paralyzing sadness invoked by the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School is any indication, I don’t know how those people are managing.

How does one recover from such horror? How do you trudge on when your soul has been ripped from you so violently and senselessly? People talk about motive. That is a joke. There can be nothing that passes as a motive for slaughtering completely innocent children. I do not want to forget the teachers and faculty that died Friday either. Their stories carry the same weight and their lives were cut short in the same brutal fashion. They died trying to protect the children of others, and they should be honored and memorialized as such. And the last cowardly act of the deranged piece of shit murdering bastard fuck was to take his own life, so that not one of those parents or spouses of the victims will ever have any real answers, never get to confront the animal that stole so much from their loved ones and from them. So how do you go on? How do you deal with the fact that you will never ever get to hold your child’s hand again, never get to kiss them goodnight, never get to hear them laugh, never get to see them grow up? No prom, no teaching them how to drive or how to cook, no soccer games, no… anything. What just yesterday was a primary aspect, a defining feature, of your life is gone. The person that occupied the vast majority of your time and your attention? Gone. What do you do with those presents under the tree? How can you ever enjoy anything ever again? I start to cry every time I imagine it, and my imagination isn’t that good. The events of Friday will fade over time, the acuteness of the pain dulled by years, but the casualties of that day are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Those directly effected by these events? Their lives will never be the same. That town will never be the same.

All of these thoughts keep leading me back to outrage at the shooter, followed shortly by thoughts of vengeance and retribution. I know it isn’t politically correct, but I really don’t care. Those weren’t even my children, but as a parent... We spend so much of our time nurturing our offspring, getting up at all hours to comfort them, reading them book after book, walking around and around the house half bent over, holding little itty bitty hands, delighting in every achievement, no matter how minor it is. “She almost fell over, but then she caught her balance!” or “She said ‘squirrel!’ I mean, it sounded like ‘skerl’ but she definitely said it.” We watch them play and think about how fast they seem to be growing up. And then they look over their shoulder and see us watching, and they smile the kind of real and pure smile that only a child can smile, and they feel safe and secure, because they know we’re there for them and we’re going to protect them and keep them from harm.

And then we can’t. Because harm is everywhere, and a life locked in your house is not really a life. But when something happens to your baby, you always end up second-guessing everything you did that led to the harm. Some tool I attended high school with posted some asinine comment that suggested the Sandy Hook teachers were somehow culpable because they weren’t toting firearms. I un-friended him. Blame the teachers. Blame the principal. Blame the gun laws. It is no one’s fault but the filth that shot those people. I will not name him. He should be anonymous, and should forever remain so. I saw a quote from Morgan Freeman that basically says as much. My own father has preached the same thing for years for those who would murder someone else to gain any kind of notoriety. No assassin shall ever have his or her name recorded or reported. They will be cremated and their ashes scattered to the four winds, or stirred into concrete for sewage tunnels. It is the victims and their families whose names should be remembered.

Those people need all of our empathy, all of our compassion, and all of our love. They don’t need us soap-boxing and using their pain and suffering for political purposes, and they don’t need someone labeling the asshole that carried out this attack “evil” or “insane.” Those are cheap and easy outs, and I’m not feeling any charity or compassion for that guy. I noticed that some in the religious quadrant have taken this opportunity to make snarky comments regarding how these things happen due to the lack of prayer in schools, as if their version of God would somehow be limited by man’s laws. As if He/She/It would turn his back on innocent children because of a beef with legislators. That’s real spiritual and healing. Nice work. I’m not what you might call a “believer.” I do not believe in the mythical Greek, Roman, or Norse gods. Nor do I believe in the Hebrew god or the Christian god (sorry Mom and Dad) or the Muslim god. However, in much the same way that I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I do believe in the spirit of this season of giving, what I do believe in is humanity, and in its incredible capacity for love and healing.

May we all strive to be a little bit better, shine a little bit brighter, love with a little more abandon, and hug our loved ones a little bit tighter – for all those who cannot.

In Memoriam:

Daniel Barden, 7

Olivia Engel, 6

Josephine Gay, 7

Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6

Dylan Hockley, 6

Madeleine F. Hsu, 6

Catherine V. Hubbard, 6

Chase Kowalski, 7

Jesse Lewis, 6

James Mattioli, 6

Grace McDonnell, 7

Emilie Parker, 6

Jack Pinto, 6

Noah Pozner, 6

Caroline Previdi, 6

Jessica Rekos, 6

Avielle Richman, 6

Benjamin Wheeler, 6

Allison N. Wyatt, 6

ADULTS

Mary Sherlach, 56

Victoria Soto, 27

Anne Marie Murphy, 52

Lauren Rousseau, 30

Dawn Hochsprung, 47

Rachel Davino, 29

Is That a Three Wood?

They say that golfliness is next to godliness.

Bachmann Takes One for the Team

In order to help take attention from the fact that Mitt Romney's campaign is in a self-induced tailspin, Representative Michele Bachmann has graciously agreed to launch unsubstantiated attacks against Muslim-Americans.  When questioned about the move, Bachmann replied, "Well, that clown (Romney) won't release his tax returns, he's lied from the get-go about his years at Bain, and unfortunately the Batman thing isn't distracting folks as much as we'd hoped.  Sheriff Joe and I decided that we'd double team the thing.  You know, pull some of the press off the trail until something else pops up.  We're kind of hoping for a massive hurricane, or maybe a volcanic eruption near a major city.  Earthquakes might work, too.  Don't quote me on that.  Oh, go ahead.  I've said crazier things! (laughs)"

"AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"           "AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

Though widely panned, even by leaders in her own party, Ms. Bachmann is sticking to the plan.  "What a true-blue American hero.  She's a real Ollie North," gushed Glenn Hubbard, one of Romney's top advisers, following a recent campaign fundraiser in Hong Kong.  When pressed about the possible anti-Muslim backlash that could result from such irresponsible accusations, Hubbard was unapologetic: "If it helps  get Obama out of the White House, then who gives a shit?  I realize that comes off as harsh, but hey... them's the berries."

In related news, the Muppets are turning our kids into communists, and Sesame Street is a haven for liberal political insurrection.  The most shocking part of this news is that anyone is still worried about communists.

Newsflash: President Thinks All Americans Should Have Rights

We've all heard the phrase "I don't have any skin in the game," and I'm tempted to use it here, in reference to President Obama's revelation that he believes gay folks should be allowed to marry here in the Land of the Free.  However, my recent decision to run for my local district's seat in the Michigan House makes it a bit tougher to do.  People expect their elected officials to have opinions on everything, regardless of the bearing on local issues.  Upon closer scrutiny, I have come to the conclusion that we all have some skin in this one, but not for the reasons that some might think.

I like you too Old Ironsides, but you are not relevant to this post.

Allow me to elaborate.  I am a fan of the U.S. Constitution, and I'm not referring to Old Ironsides. That would require another "S."  I will address gay marriage first as a matter of law, since that is the tack most states are taking in attempting to modify their own individual constitutions to ban the practice.  We all know that State Constitutions are subordinate to THE Constitution.  We also all know that our founding document guarantees equal rights for all, even if it did take some amending to get there (women, black folks).  So, what on Earth makes anyone think they can deny another group the same rights they enjoy?  Apparently, it's the Bible.  I'd like at this point to refer the reader to the infamous "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment.  Rick Santorum, you may feel free to vomit now.  Bags for such have been provided for those of weaker constitutions.*  No offense, but a religious basis for creating laws, especially exclusionary ones, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, as far as I'm concerned that should be the end of the discussion.  You are free to have your own opinions on whether things are right, moral, etc., but you are not allowed to deny someone else their rights because of your religious beliefs or tomes.  Simple.  Some of the same people who would march on Washington, rifles in hand, should anyone suggest altering the Second Amendment to exclude, say assault rifles, will stand there with a perfectly straight face and sense of moral superiority and in cavalier fashion talk about trampling the First Amendment - because they disagree with what it guarantees ALL Americans.

We all know we can't have this discussion without addressing the Bible specifically, even though that should NOT BE THE CASE.  So I will address it.  Christianity is the religion based on the teachings of Christ.  The teachings of Christ are contained exclusively in the New Testament.  We've adopted the Old Testament as a  preamble of sorts to the New, but Jesus wasn't alive for any of that.  Jesus didn't hate anyone, he didn't exclude anyone from His salvation, and he was not judge and jury for anyone.  He preferred to leave those things between God the Father and the person in question.  Nowhere does He personally address homosexuality, nor does He ever condemn anyone for anything.

Religious talking heads will scrape about for any sign that Jesus condemned homosexuality, but the proof just isn't there.  Jesus didn't endorse the law of Moses, He just said that if someone wasn't religious, or didn't believe the law of Moses, how would they believe Him, as He was speaking from the standpoint of the religious-minded.  For such an important topic, one would think the Son of God might make specific mention of it.  Of course, we as mere mortals cannot truly know what the divine mind thinks, but all evidence suggests that He was not the type to single out a group for derision or exclusion, and it's getting a little old listening to people who want to put such words into His mouth and thoughts into His mind.  As if you could possibly fathom the motives of God.  "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is one of my favorite sayings of His.  He also excoriated us to follow His example - to love our neighbors and treat them as we would like to be treated.  End of discussion. Seriously.  Now get on with making your own life reflect that of Christ's as He asked you to do.  That is the commitment you make when you call yourself Christian.

If none of this has convinced you that you have no business in other people's business, then you are not the type that changes their mind based on valid argument, but that is not going to stop me from taking one last stab at it.  If marriage is an institution of religion, and you think the church should have a say in matters of the state (outlawing gay marriage) then what gives you the right to tell churches they cannot marry gays?  Sounds to me like you're okay with infringing not just on the rights of a whole class of Americans, but also on the churches that do accept and welcome them.  Something's rotten in Denmark, I say.

On the side of the Constitution yet?  One last try:  Suppose a whole mosque-load of Americans got together and voted to institute Sharia Law in their state.  Since the people voted "yes" would it be okay, even though to do so would directly contradict the principles of equal rights, not to mention the establishment of religion clause of ...here it is again, the Constitution?  Methinks an ugly double standard would rear it's head here because of the insertion of a non-Christian religion's beliefs into the equation.  Take a long, hard look in the mirror, and ask yourselves, WWJD (What would Jefferson do?)™
*pun fully intended.